“The confusion centres on the label, with many unaware of the history surrounding the ‘New York 23’ variant. The ‘NY 23’ only made its way onto the spindle as the result of a label shortage. A kind of ‘swap & chop’ occurred towards the end of the one and only original pressing of this album, hence the low numbers (estimated in the region of 200-300) to carry it. What some call the first press is theoretically mislabeled.”

This is unfortunately pure b.s. It is not only misleading but utterly illogical. One of the first things I discovered in studying Blue Note disk history is to make distinctions between “blank” (only the background printed, not the specifics for an individual title) labels and printed labels (all the particulars printed -title, cat no, songs, personnel, etc) as I was trying to sort out the Break Points, in this case for 1568, 1575 and 1577 or later for 4072, 4077 and 4080 -cases where split labels occur on early (and earliest) pressings.

Focusing just on 1568, the notion that a “label shortage” required pressing old labels (NY 23) into service is utter nonsense. The labels to be used for pressing records were printed on the stock of blank labels, prior to any disk manufacture for 1568. It would have been at this point that a MIXTURE of old (NEW YORK 23) and new (streamlined 63rd NYC) blank labels were printed up with the actual Mobley 1568 data: Title, tunes personnel. Two sets for the different data (songs) appropriate for Side A and Side B.

(Some records would have a mixture of labels for both sides, like 1575 and 1577.)

For 1568 one Side was apparently (I can never know for sure – I have no access now to ALL disks pressed, and many were destroyed through use so it is impossible to see them all anyway) prepared with ONLY the new 63rd NYC labels taken from stock and printed up with the 1568 specific info, then ready for use in pressing. So NO both sides NY23 version (presumably) was ever pressed. The idea of running out during pressing (or pressings) of labels is absurd. The final printing of labels came first, and unused printed labels were saved in stock for later pressings, a provable fact since even a novice has seen the years-later cases of Lexington on one side and Liberty label on the other side for say the Fats Navarro BN titles – individual labels that were originally printed (as BLANKS) perhaps 10 years apart. Those Lexington Navarro labels married with A DIVISION OF LIBERTY Navarro labels were not blank and printed up with Navarro 1532 info many years after – no, the Lexington Navarro labels had been printed in final version say in 1956 and laid around in stock for 10 years until used for a Liberty pressing at a Liberty pressing plant in 1966 or 1967, before MONO was abandoned.

The point is that the NY 23 labels with 1568 info on them were printed and finalized at the same time as the 1568 on 63rd NYC labels. A stack of blank labels became printed Side A 1568 and similarly a stack of labels became printed Side B 1568, and one of these stacks contained a mixture of old and new backgrounds. The distinction between old and new design was irrelevant to the Blue Note owners, the folks working in the pressing plant, Rudy Van Gelder, and any quality control staffers. Mistakes could be made (I own Cool Struttin’ original with both sides bearing the Side B label -just an error at the plant), but mixed addresses was not considered wrong or even out of the ordinary.

So it would be the luck of the draw which label a record would receive in a first pressing as sketched out by me above. If 1568 had been a successful release and received several pressings, it would be like Blue Trane 1577 or other titles with many, many variations in existence. It was not, and most likely had only one pressing run, making all the disks originals -they are all DG, and there is no Liberty version, and 1568 was dropped from the BN catalog before other changes like NEW YORK USA occurred. So “label shortage” is a joke – rather the mismatch was caused by frugality (cheapness) in the first place, using up old, leftover BLANK labels with the NY23 already printed on them, rather than starting off clean in 1957 and 1958 with only NEW blank labels in stock.

Post script: I have physical evidence in my collection of all the theorizing written above, tangible disks with real labels on them. Not only endless variations on 1531 and 1532 Navarro, but for 1568: a “FOR PROMOTION ONLY” stamped on both A and B labels copy of Mobley that yes, has 63rd NYC labels on both sides, proving that this variation -like the one the Brits were auctioning – existed for a first pressing, since those stamped on labels were pre-release sent out to magazines (like downbeat) and reviewers and deejays to promote the record. A flop like 1568 could not have had a later promotion cycle requiring such stamping, since it was a flop – no point in promoting it again. I also have conventional first pressings of 1568, with the NY23 label on one side only -not stamped as promotional but sold in a store.

I am one of the Vinyl House collective,nicknamed the “General”because of my order barking demeanour.
In response to the comment “endless supply”,we have a stock of 100,000 and an archive of 15,000.
As for the “Mobley” auction;The winner is from the UK and the Under bidder France. The winner placed a bid that would ensure a market close-out,we then took around 50 choice condition pieces in exchange.If he grants us permission we will do a story on our blog.
We invite any member of this forum to visit either our studio or storage facility by prior appointment.
Should anyone wish to see or hear some of the greatest recordings of all time,please get in touch.We are not elitists,snobs,sexists or racists.We are music worshippers that have joined together to do our best.We do not make it up and we do not shill.Read our most recent blog post for an individual who decided that he would research his price limitations AFTER bidding,go figure?
Some bidders over bid to ensure acquisition then attempt to pay less,30%less.
We never comply as that would be an insult to the rest of the genuine bidders in that particular auction,as they are not privvy to any retrospective price corrections.Should this pattern become the norm we will be forced to sell “Buy-it-now”only,this would be a shame as we prefer the thrill of the chase.
KIndest regards,peace and love VH.